why not accept the 1937 La Salle conv. ?

Good question. CCCA limits it's interest in LaSalle's to 1927 through 1933. Some will say the later cars aren't "exclusive" enough. Others will say they can't think of any reason not to accept them. The debate goes on. It just depends on your vision of the Club for the future.<P>Thr real answer to the question is "The Classification Committee hasn't looked favorably upon the car." For CCCA Classic status, each car is considered either individually or as a series, by a committee who meets about eight times a year. While I don't always agree with their findings, I am quite in awe in regards to their amount of pooled automotive knowledge. It's quite an interesting group of people I would cheerfully call "experts." If they say a car is a CCCA Classic, you can be sure it has it's share of exemplary characteristics.<P>There is a proceedure to apply for Classic status for any car. The full directions can be found in the Member's Handbook & Directory. I'm not sure right now would be a good time to ask the LaSalle question, but you might find it to be an interesting experience in the future.<P>Welcome to the Club.

For Unregist. Doug ( regarding his question why we do not call many LaSalle's a "classic")<P>Doug - each of your factors in describing what a great car your old La Salle is, are fine with me personally, and I am sure, with any sincere old car bufff. <P>Yes, most ordinary old cars DID sell more than the big-engined classics. Yes, of COURSE it, like just about any American car, was well made, durable, and gave good service.<P>And, in MANY people's opinions, (especially those who own ordinary old cars from the classic era) you think it "better looking" then those big arrogant heavy monsters we call "classics".<P>Let me try to give you a "perspective" of what is a "classic" car, at least as they were originally defined by the CCCA. <P>First of all, we are all WELL aware that the word "classic" has evolved, given the down-ward tumble of our educational system. Opening a OLDER dictionary, we find the word "classic" means<P> "UNIQUE...of FIRST rank....representing<BR> the HIGHEST standard of excellence.."<P>That is why the Club picked the word "classic" to describe the most elegant, biggest, most powerful luxury cars of the 1920-1940 era.<P>To give you another perspective of the times, in Robert J Gottlieb's " CLASSIC CARS AND ANTIQUES", published around '53, (I should explain, Bob was an early leader in the classic car movement on the west coast, and did all he could to publisize the idea and concept of the "classic car", you will find a picture of my '34 Packard Super Eight sedan - a perfectly fine upper mid-income car...a GREAT car, but most certainly NOT great, large, powerful, or luxurious enough to be considered a CLASSIC, at least by the standards the Club THOUGHT it was establishing....<P> " the differences between this old<BR> Packard sedan and a TRUE CLASSIC are<BR> so great they need no further discussion"<P>(thank's Bob....nearly forty years later..it<BR>still hurts...I loved that old tank...!)<P>Of COURSE we are all aware that the CCCA put the word "classic" into the vocabulary of the old car buff. Now, we all know that EVERYONE wants to call ANY old car they like (or are stuck with for any number of reasons) a "classic".<P>Heck..I was browsing thru some hot rod magazines the other day...one magazine even calls my '91 GMC Suburban a "classic truck"...!<P>Let me give you another perspective. As a teaching device, trying to help people picture, in their "mind's eye" what a true classic was.....try imagining an elegant diplomatic reception at an ambassador's residence...or "first night" at the Metropolitan Opera, or the main entrance of an exclusive private club, back in that era.<P>The long, elegant, "super luxury" cars pulling into the FRONT entrance, each more ostentatious, more powerful, and more elegant than the next...these would be the future "classics". Those nice well made "common man" cars parked out of sight in the tradesmen's quarters, for the servants and service people...well....those are the "gosh...I hate those big arrogant old classics...mine is SOO much better looking".....ordinary old cars, that we charitably call "collector cars".<P>In my real life, I cant be bothered with a big hulking car...my cute little Toyota RAV4 "mini wagon" does everything I need done. Do I smirk a bit when I park alongside some ostentatious "show off" car..? Of course. <P>The classic era was "hard times" for most people. Of course, looking at it back here in the REAL world, it was an AWFUL time.<P>I wouldnt want to go back to those days...(except maybe to buy up some Dusenburgs, stuff em in an underground vault...and...perhaps...buy up the San Fernando Valley...) It was a time of brutal labor discord and economic hardship within this country, and tragedy and horror over-seas.<P>For a few VERY rich, VERY powerful, and VERY lucky people, who could live in the "fantasy world" of the ultra rich, the true classic car was but one of the symbols of absurd over-consumption and ostentation. They got the very best the technology could produce, and for some of us, that is interesting. Most of us who participated in the early years of the CCCA knew full well the whole thing about the "classic era" was an absurd farce, but interesting and fun, just the same. Take the year I first started coming around to classic car events ( 1954 ) ...you really think I would rather be out in the Mojave desert in the summer in my Packard Twelve, if I could have afforded a then brand new air conditioned ordinary car !<P>Let's keep this discussion about the classic era in perspective. It is a period of history, interesting to recall, salute its high points, and laugh at its absurdities. But again, don't confuse what THIS particular Club was, and hopefully WILL remain focused on...the BEST of the best. This was not, and hopefully WILL not become the depository for EVERY nice middle class old car that someone likes, remembers riding around in, OR WANTS TO SELL....!<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

Thanks , Yes I agree the 37 La Salle was not an upper class car. but I feel that it has great styling, at least the conv. coupe. Most of us have good memories of our first old car, like an old girl friend you wish you hadnt let go. Thanks Chuck and Peter! Doug

For Unregis Doug:<P>Your liking the styling of the La Salle, and your fond memories of it, are suffiicent qualification to call it a "classic"...at least by today's standards. There IS one more qualification tho....dont you want to sell it..?<P>May I respectfully suggest you READ about what the Classic Car Club Of America is all about...and why the word "classic" was selected.<P>There was a time...when the word "classic" did NOT mean "nice old car I have great memories of.....". In that strange, forbidden time, the word "classic" was attractive to the fellows who started this club, and wound up as our theme...because it had TWO related meanings.<P>First....dictionaries of that era defined<BR>it as<P> " something unique...of first rank <BR> representing the HIGHEST standard<BR> of excellence ". Under this reasoning,<BR> our earlier "acceptability" list<BR> recognized a Cadillac V-16 or Packard<BR> Twelve most certainly DID fit that<BR> specification, but a perfectly nice<BR> but quite ordinary upper middle class<BR> car such as a Packard "120" or Cad V-8<BR> did NOT".<P> The SECOND element, was the traditional<BR> meaning as a "school of design". The<BR> term "classical" comes down from the <BR> Greek language, referring to a particular<BR> "school of design theory" in which<BR> each form reflects its function. Thus<BR> a classic car has a hood, a head light,<BR> a fender...and a trunk that reflects<BR> its function. a "moderne"...or stream- <BR> lined car, did not belong in the CLASSIC<BR> car club.<P>Clearly, your thinking is in line with current "politicall correctness". We have people who NOW believe the "people" should have the power to tell you what kind of car you should drive, and what its characterestics should be.<P>Sieg Hiel !<P><BR>Pete Hartmann

Doug-<BR>While some of the opinions you find here are worth reading, others are most certainly not. <P>For examples of the types of cars listed as approved by the CCCA, look at their website, a hyperlink to which is on this forum. On their home page, for example, is a photo of a 1937 Delage D8, a car with flowing, streamlined styling very similar to your LaSalle. <P>The LaSalle is a good example of the difficulty of the decision making on the part of the CCCA. Thought by many to be a more striking representative of the styling direction that GM was taking, the LaSalle was priced at the lower end of Cadillac's line. Even at that price, it had essentially all the same features found on its brethren including its own version of the great V8. <P>Nevertheless, as the CCCA range of interest includes Duesenberg at the high end, so too it must establish an understandable cut off on the low end. It is probably more due to its original price than any tangible attribute that LaSalle was left out. <P>My advice? Enjoy the car.

J Smith..I agree...good advice...enjoy that La Salle, Doug......great car !<P>Pete Hartmann

Pete: I completely agree with your discussion of what qualifies as a classic in the CCCA, but have one question. How did "Lincoln Continentals" get on the approved list?<P>To all others: Please do not misunderstand me, but based on the information I have read on this forum about "Classic" Era cars, I just don't see the connection.

Hi Chris :<P>Re - your question as to how we got the Lincoln Continentals of '40-48 into the Classic Car Club Of America.<P>I was only a kid-teen-ager with a beat up '34 Packard Super Eight in those first years of the CCCA - so I was not personally privy to the "inner workings" of how this came about. I can SUMMARIZE what went on-see below:<P>Let me first assure you I think those Connies are marvelous from a design standpoint. However, many of us at that time felt then, as we do now, the "founding fathers" correctly chose the word "classic" to describe the cars we felt were worth saving, and, at the risk of repeating myself, this word had a clear and definite meanings at the time, as can be seen from a review of dictionaries of THAT era (before "politically correct" liberalism made it a word any semi literate used car salesmen DEMANDED that he could use to describe ANY old car he wanted to sell....!)<P>The traditional meaning of "classic" was a) something UNIQUE..of FIRST rank..of the HIGHEST standard of excellence. For example, no-one could argue against the statement that the ordinary Packard and Cadillac middle class eights were great cars for the money. But they were NOT designed or intended to be the BEST - the Packard Twelve, the Cadillac 12's and V-16's...etc. were.<BR> the "classic" school of design, if one is educated in the arts and art history, means "form follows function"..in automotive design, we note separate hoods, headlights, fenders, each shape of which is determined by its function.<P>In view of the above, many of us, pointing out that the Lincoln Continental was clearly of the "moderne" or "art deco/stream-lined" school of design, was WAY too modern to be in the same Club with the older "school of design" cars we felt DID belong in the CCCA.<P>There is also a strong argument that technically, the Linconl Continental was merely a "stretched" FOrd V-8, technically, of average to mediocre quality, hardly in the same league as the famous "Leland" Lincoln V-8's of the 1920's, and the KA and KB series of the 1930's.<P>Our Club hadn't been in existence very long before the car enthusiast public "caught on". We did not invent the word "classic", but we sure gave it meaning, value, and significance to the old car buff. It wasnt long before EVERYONE with an old car wanted "in".<P>SOME of our early Directors felt getting the Connies in, would give us greater strength thru greater raw numbers of membership. Others felt then and now, this was a DUMB idea...lowering our standards to increase raw numbers of members, then and now, led to an influx of people who could not or would not "get it" as to what we were trying to do.<P>I havn't talked to founding member Bob Turnquist for some time about this, but I do recall his impassioned discussion, which, again, I fully agree with, <P> "dillution is equivilent<BR> to destruction". <P>If you want to explore your question in depth, you might want to research back issues of the Classic Car Bulletin, which has notes and summaries of our earlier Board meetings. <P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

The short answer to your Lincoln Continental question isn't very pretty. It seems many years ago the Lincoln Club was having a lot of difficulty staying alive. The CCCA Board which was in power at the time decided we could really increase our membership nimbers by recognizing these cars, since it was thought they would soon not have a club of their own. As it worked out the Lincoln Club got over its difficulties and flourished. The CCCA netted only a very few members from the deal, but they had now opened up the door to post war cars. The whole idea was a dismal failure.<P>This is the heritage that has been left to the current CCCA Board. Life would certainly be much simpler if our dates stopped at World War II, as the founders of the Club originally intended. Would the Club be as well off? I honestly don't know. One thing's for sure, it would certainly be easier to justify our existence in the car collecting community's eyes. <P>Of course, there is no going back. We can't just say, "Sorry all your post war Lincolns, Cadillacs, Rolls, Bentleys, DeLages, Delehayes, etc. are no longer welcome." To do so would be suicidal, and the fact of the matter is, these are very significant cars. This is the dilema the Club currently faces. We have been delt a hand by our predecessor. Since we can't reverse history, we now have to make the best of the situation.

I don't think the situation is quite as rough for Club management as Chuck suggests. True, many of us feel it was a mistake to "let in" cars that do not represent the "classic era" as originally defined.<P>The "camel's nose in the tent" argument was that we should let in those post-war cars that were identical to pre war cars that had been subsequently admitted down thru the years.<P>From the results of the "National Survey(s" of the past several decades, the National Board would be correctly reflecting the overwhelming majority of the members in STICKING TO ITS GUNS and saying.." THAT IS IT...ENOUGH IS ENOUGH".<P>Pete Hartmann

The funny thing is Peter, the survey doesn't really say that. The results are very ambiguous. About the only thing everyone agreed on was they liked our publications.<P>In fact, I'm currently reviewing a huge stack of the survey's looking at the written comments. It's pretty interesting. In the stack I have, the number one suggestion to improve the club is to admit more cars. The comments about what to admit are all over the place. Some are pretty funny. One guy wants cars from 1910 admitted, another wants 1976 Cadillac Eldorado's! (Really!)<P>Of course, none of us seriously think that either are a possibility, but it does show what diverse opinions our membership has. For every person who wants to be as strict as you do, there is someone else who has quite a different opinion. Then there are the people who simply don't care. Truth be known, they are probably the majority. That wasn't reflected in the survey results, since it's hard to count someone who doesn't care enough to respond. A huge percentage of our members did not participate. A "silent majority" if you will. <P>Only a minority of our members returned a completed survey. Even in the ones that were returned, you'd be amazed how many people said they had no opinion about what cars we allow.<P>I'd be the first to admit that it was a terrible survey. It was poorly constructed and yielded results that are difficult or impossible to interpret. People answered questions in ways we never imagined, which further clouded the issue. If any of us are still around when it's time for the next survey, maybe we'll remember some of our mistakes. I hope so.<P>When the recent Bylaw change to admit some pre 1925 cars was voted on by our membership, it passed by a landslide margin of nearly five to one. It's probably fair to assume there is a message in results like that.<P>Since the ballot was a part of the membership renewal package, we had the highest response we've ever received, but it still was not a majority of our members. It seems most have no opinion or simply don't care.<P>In the mean time, I think we, as a club, should concentrate on our strong points. Most people will tell you they enjoy CCCA because of the quality of our events and CARavans, the interesting publications, and the really amazing people they meet. I think concentrating on these points is the Club's formula for success in the future. In fact, I think they explain the last 50 successful years too.

A few thoughts for Mr. Hartmann re: classics. While I generally agree that the term classic should remanin specifically defined, I think that a bit of bias may have crept into your description of the definition. As far as my reading of the list goes, not all "full classics" were huge, heavy, 12 or 16 cyl, unstreamlined dreadnoughts from the US. <P>I am very fortunate to be restoring a fairly small car - about 2600lb and 15 ft long with a small engine (a 2 liter inline six). One of its most advertized original selling points was the fact that it was streamlined. It has 4 seats, but only small children will fit well in the rear, it wan not extravagantly trimmed, and it hails from Germany, of all places. Yet, by my reading of the CCCA list, it truly is a "full classic". It was reasonably exclusive in its day, but not so that only the super rich could afford one, and it's not the rarest car on earth, either - about 1500 were made and about 300 survive. <P>Far be it for me to peer into the collective mind of the CCCA, but I suspect that cars such as mine were included based upon the truly advanced engineering inherent in the car, meticulous attention to quality, and high performance on the road, not because it "wows the crowd". <P>Merely my two cents, mind you...<P>Also, could we kindly lose the "Sieg Heil!" bit. I'll not beat up on you about it, but I don't think that was the greatest choice of phrases. Of course, maybe I'm sensitive to it because my car was built in Eisenach during the Nazi era.

Hi Chris!<P>As I have noted previously, I am not competent to comment on European cars of ANY era ! Remember, this is a car club, not a fanatical religion, so we are all free to gripe and moan if we have reservations on the direction of our Club !<P>I CAN tell you that the first ten or twenty years of the CCCA were, at least in my own personal view, highly successful, in that (at least was the case in the major regions) we enjoyed splendid attendence at our events, and had great publications. As the years went on, I drifted in and out of Club events and management. I do recall SOME participation by European cars in the early years, but they were invariably the biggest, heaviest, most powerful luxury cars, such as the 500 series Damiler Benz (Mercedes) Rolls Royce, Austrio Damiler, Hissos, Issota, and so on. <P>Assuming my recollections are correct, this would support my own personal prejudice that this Club's emphasis was on the biggest and best luxury cars. <P>I do not recall seeing any BMW's at our events in So. Calif. Region, and in my ignorance, am assuming from your description what you are talking about is some kind of sports car.<P>As we have all noted, the Classic Car Club of America was successful beyond its wildest dreams in making the word "classic" something EVERYONE thought was "neat", and wanted to call whatever they had to sell...! It IS a free country; who would DARE question anyone's right to call what they like..whatever they want to ! (often...the use (or mis-use) of language tells us more about the speaker than the item he is describing....!)<P>If I had been on the National Board when your car's type came up for "acceptance" consideration, I would have voted against it. <P>I have no reason to question your description or evaluation of what your car is. But, again, it sounds way too modern, way too stream-lined, and marketed towards a different kind of driver-buyer than what I think a "classic" is.<P>Please do NOT interpet these remarks as in any way depreciating your choice in cars ! As Conrad notes in his excellent post, we have all kinds of views in the Club these days. <P>I do not recall when cars of your type (smaller, lighter sports cars) were "admitted". Bottom line - you apparently are a fellow car buff interested in what your particular choice in cars is all about. You apparently know WHY you like your choice of cars, and understand its technical nature as a mechanical device. For that, all I can do is salute you ! <P>Pete Hartmann

In CCCA's earliest days, among the cars admitted into the Club were sports and racing cars. Some of these were even the high powered open wheel racers of the Classic Era. Cars in "racing configuration" are no longer recognized (pity), but at one time, there was a judging class for them.<P>Many of these sporty cars were indeed European in origin. Quite a few, like the Bugatti Type 57, and the gentleman's BMW are still recognized by the Club and certainly most welcome. In fact during the formative years of the Club, they were quite popular in some areas of the country. Regional differences may explains why some people report "never seeing them" while others "saw them all the time." You could buy some of these European cars quite reasonably, at least by today's standards. Quite a few were brought to the USA by servicemen returning home after WW II. I'm sure it was much more affordable to ship one to the East Coast, than it was to ship to California, so I imagine the Easterners saw more of them than the Westerners.<P>I know personally of a Bugatti 57 and a Mercedes 540K that belonged to very early members of CCCA. In fact, the cars are still still active in the Club and owned by CCCA members. The original owners are still here too, albeit with different cars these days.<P>Of course, there were lots of V-12 American iron in the Club too. Sporty or not, they all are great fun to play with. The Club was diverse when it was founded, and it is now. Don't let anybody tell you differently.

Hey..Conrad...I certainly admire your desire to please everyone and be "politically correct"....but there really IS a Classic Car Club of America...and its eastern group really DID put out a publication called THE CLASSIC CAR...and the group I was with really DID put out a SIDE MOUNT MIRROR ( I was Editor for a brief period ) and there really ARE pictures of what kind of cars showed up at our events.<P>No amount of trying to be "politically correct" now...is going to change the REAL history of what DID happen.<P>But, there is no arguing with the fact that the massive membership drives have flooded our Club with people who have their own "agenda". The lobbyists from the big auction companies have been hard at work with the various state motor vehicle beauracies, and they have been successful. These days, people no longer feel embarssed to call just about ANY old car a "classic"...all they have to do is point to their motor vehicle bureau's regs.<P>Wonder what is going to happen when a few people with some big old luxury cars nobody really cares about...get together and form a Club....hmmm...what about THE NON CLASSIC CAR CLUB OF AMERICA....if mid 19340's and '50's ordinary cars are now "classics"...please do NOT call my car a "classic"....!<P>Pete Hartmann

"Sieg Heil"

For Unregis. J Smith:<P>Can you explain in more detail what you think about the Classic Car Club Of America, and its policies, history, etc..?

Remeber...this "thread" got started by an apparently well-meaning guy with a legitimate question about his '37 La Salle. He has a right to a legit answer.<P>For those who may not be able to "scroll up", he felt these were the factors for being a "classic" 1) he "felt" his car was<BR> better looking than<BR> the larger Cadillacs<BR> <BR> 2) He noted the La Salle<BR> sold better than Cads.<P> 3) He felt his La Salle<BR> is a great car.<P>Of course all of his representations are true; who can deny that any nice middle class American car of that era was a "great car". Who can deny how someone ELSE feels about THEIR car ?<P>But, again, at the risk of repeating myself (which I am doing, on the assumption, based on these "posts", that for some reason some of you are unable to digest material on first or second reading,) this particular Club was founded for a VERY NARROW and LIMITED purpose.<P>Please come to our events, see the kind of car that our Club was formed to preserve, and READ our publications. <P>I can assure ALL of you we welcome ANYONE, whether or not you actually own or operate a TRUE classic, PROVIDED you have a legitimate interest in what we are all about as a Club.<P>Given the fact that the overwhelming majority of cars on our "acceptability" list are the largest, heaviest, most powerful, most elegant, and most aristocratic cars of the 1925-1942 period, clearly, from their marketing campaigns of their era, "marketed" towards the ultra rich, it is easy to see how some people think these are "arrogant" cars. Anyone stuck nursing an ordinary car of that era on a long hot up-hill grade on a desert highway of that era, watching a big Pierce Arrow V-12 or Cadillac V-12, V-16, etc, blast by, would certainly feel jealous.<P>We cant help that. We didnt design the cars, we didnt build em, nor did we design the very "elitist" advertising programs that marketed them. DONT BLAME US ! All we did, within the context of this Club, is try to preserve them and encourage people to maintain them in a authentic condition.<P>If that appeals to you, JOIN us. If it dosnt, please be assured we encourage you to join any old car organization that meets your needs !<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

CCCA aims to preserve, collect and enjoy the world's finest automobiles from the period 1925 through 1948. I think that's a worthy goal. <P>Presumably, CCCA's policies support that goal, so those too are worthy. <P>I'm not sure how I can have an opinion on CCCA's actual history. But they have a history, and that's OK with me. <P>The only recommendation I would make to CCCA is for it to restrain its unappointed spokesman.

Unregis - I say again..I am NOT a spokeman for ANYONE !<P>But...if you are looking for a place where conflicting ideas are restrained....I have no suggestions for you. This car hobby thing is NOT a fundamentalist religion...we are ALL free to comment on one another's "posts".<P>Now..."lighten up".....and tell us about YOUR classic car interests....!<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

Peter is a spokesman for himself, not CCCA. He is entitled to express his views on this forum (as long as they are civil) as is anyone else. (Same rules apply) This is a public Discussion Forum. <P>It should be obvious to everyone who's followed the escapades of the last few months that he does enjoy "tweaking" with you, which makes it difficult for many people to "lighten up," as he puts it. <P>The fact of the matter is there is a list of CCCA approved cars, any of which are fully acceptable at our activities. The list is certainly no secret, it's even on the web site. Here is the link: <A HREF="http://www.classiccarclub.org/CarList.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.classiccarclub.org/CarList.htm</A> <P>Many notable European cars can be found there. They and their owners are most welcome in CCCA. Some of them were involved in the Club from it's earliest days, but just as today, they were in the minority. That does not make them inferior in the eyes of the Club. Whatever type of car excites you is a matter of your personal taste. <P>A quick glance at my latest issue of "The Bulletin" (which is one of our two regular publications) reveals pictures of a Mercedes SSK, a '31 Bentley, a '38 Talbot Lago, a '36 Hispano-Suiza, a '32 Delage, A Delahaye 135M, and a couple of Rolls-Royce motor cars. Are the majority? Nope, but that doesn't make them any less interesting, desirable or welcome.<P>We are a big club with diverse tastes. Not everyone wants a Packard or Cadillac, even if they are nice cars. I think that makes it a much more interesting place.

Hi Peter,<P>You've given some food for thought re: classic cars (that aren't huge) and I'm going to see if I can return the favor, just a little .<P>First, I'll be the first to admit that my car (A 1938 BMW 327 Cabriolet, btw) is definitely not as opulent or expensive as a Dusenberg or a V16 Caddilac, or a Mercedes 540K. Those cars are really true works of art that fully deserve the status they hold. As far as I can tell, however, my car fits the definition of classic put forth by the CCCA, its inclusion in the list is not inaproppriate. I would respectfully submit that your Packard didn't cost what a Dusenberg did - or have the astounding performance of the Dusenberg, either.<P>Personally, it matters little to me whether the car is or is not on some list, as I'd love it just the same. It's been my father's car for 40 years and it gives me a tangible link to his youth - now THAT'S priceless, IMHO.<P>With that said, I think, despite its being quite a modern car for its age (wasn't a Dusenberg or a 540K, too?), form does follow function very closely on the old Bimmer. If it's not needed for comfort or the functionality of the car, it's not there. If it is needed, it is there, has been designed to a very high standard, and is made from top grade materials. The 327 Cab. wasn't so much a sports car, but a sporting tourer, though it is nearly the mechanical twin of an absolutely legendary German sportscar, the 328. It might be small in size and have a small displacement engine, but that little 2L put out 80 HP, giving a top speed over 90 mph. The 328 would exceed 100 mph, I believe, with the same running gear. I don't think anyone driving my car would be humiliated by any Auburn, Caddy, or Packard of the period, no matter how many cylinders were in evidence.<P>I think that the CCCA recognized those two cars BECAUSE they pointed to the future so accurately, yet retained the purity of form, function, and quality from their era. The technologies perfected on my particular car may still be seen on many cars today. It has rack and pinion steering (with no slop at 64 years old!), a very rigid semi-monocoque with a compliant independent front suspension, enabling prodigious rold-holding. Its valve train is similar to that of an Alfa Romeo... built in 1987. The brakes are actually efficient enough to haul the car down from 80 mph safely, said my dad, at least - he did it. For such a small car, they truly are impressive - 11" drums all 'round.<BR> <BR>The European perspective on motoring was different from the American one, admitted, but I think there is room in the CCCA's own set of definitions of what truly is classical to fit both of these perspectives. This, I think, is why my car was included.<P>A quick analogy: Beethoven's Fifth Symphony and a Bach chamber music piece are radically different pieces of music in terms of scale and grandeur, however both are certainly considered by even the most rabid purist to be Classical, aren't they? They're Classic because they're wonderfully proportioned and beautifully constructed, not becasue they'e big or small or complex or simple.<P>Wouldn't it be boring if the only Haagen Dasz you could get was vanilla, wonderful though it may be? <P>How about this: When I finally get the beast going, and it'll be a while, I'll give you a ride in the Teutonic Squad Car if you give me a spin in your Packard, then we can arm wrestle over it.

Hey Christopher.... you have a deal ! If you are ever out here in Arizona...look me up !<P>Pete Hartmann